FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT MAY 5, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1115 2 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 01-14019 -CR- KMM UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee,
ve rs us RAM IRO RA MOS , a.k .a. “ EL CHAGAN, ” et c., d.b .a. “ R&A HARVESTING,” D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1292 3

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 01-14019 -CR- KMM UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee,
ve rs us JUA N R AMO S,2

a.k .a. NENO, et c., d.b .a. R&A HARVESTING, etc ., D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appe al s f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ ( May 5, 200 5) Be fo re CA RN E S, H U L L a nd M A RC U S, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: T his is the se co nd t im e thi s c as e ha s be enbe fo re thi s C ourt. I n th e fi rs t appeal, this Court vacate d two of the four c onvi ctions of defendants Ram iro Ram os and Juan R am os and v ac at ed the ir 147 -m onth se nte nc es . O n r em an d, the dis tr ic t c ourt se nte nc ed

both de fe ndants to 60 m onths’ im pr iso nm en t onc ount

1
an d 12 0 m onths’ im

pr iso nm en t onc ount

4. I n th is a

ppe al , the de fe ndants
c h a l l e n g e t h e i r

n e ws e n t e n c e s . A f

t e r r e v i e w , w e a f

f i rm. I. BACK GROUND A. Trial Evidenc e The def endants are brothers w ho used th reats to prevent m igrant worker s from leaving their em

ploym ent, housed the m igrant worker s in aby sm al
co ndi tio ns, ke pt the m igr an t w orke rs und er sur ve ill an ce , a nd k ep t the m igr an t3

w orke rs in de bt f

or the dur at ionof

the harv es tin g se as on. F urthe r, the de fe ndants assaulted Jos e Martinez, the ow ner of a transportation service f or m igrant farm worker s, w ith the int ent of inducin g Martinez not to transport m igrant farm worker s out of Lake P lacid, F lorida. A t the de fe ndants ’ tr ia l, Mart ine z an d A le j an dr o B en ite z, a n e m

plo y ee of Mart ine z, te sti fi ed

about the a ssa ult
. F urthe r, thr ee m igr an t w orke rs te sti fi ed a s to the ir li vin g c ondi tio ns. O n June 26, 200 2, aj ur

y c onvi ct ed

both de fe ndants of

: c onsp ir ac y

to vio la te the laws of the United States by keeping m igrant worker s in inv olun tary servitude, in v iol at ionof

18 U
. S. C. § 37 1 ( co unt

1) ; i nte rf er en ce w ithc om

m er ce thr ough extortion b y

threats or violence, in viol ation of 18 U.S .C. §§ 195 1 and 2 (count 2 );
use of af ir earm dur ing ac ri m e of

vio le nc e, in vio la tio n of

18 U
. S. C. §§ 9 24 and 2 (c ount 3) ; and h ar

bor ing il le ga l a lie ns f

ro m January 1, 200 0, to June 20, 200 1, in vi ol at io n o f 8 U.S.C . § 1 32 4 a nd 18 U.S.C. § 2 (co un t 4 ). B. Th e F ir st S en te nc in g an d A pp ea l Af ter the trial, the district court sentenced both defendants to three
co nc ur re nt 6 3- m onth te rm s of

im pr iso nm en t onc ount s 1, 2, a nd 4 , a nd t o a
co nse cu tiv e 84- m onth se nte nc e as to co unt 3, f or atot al of 147 m onths’ im pr is on m en t.I n Schei d le r , th e Su p r e me Co urt h e ld

th at e xto rti o nun d e r

1 8 U
. S. C. § 1 9 5 1 ( T h e H o bbs 1 Anti-Racke teer ing Act) requires that a person must actually obtain proper

ty from anothe r par

ty . 537 U.S. at 404, 123 S. Ct . at 1065. 4 Inthe ir f ir st a ppe al , the de fe ndants r ai se d se ve ra l c ha lle nge s to the ir
co nvi ct ion s and s en te nc es . S pe ci fi ca lly , the de fe ndants a rg ue d th at : ( 1) the ir
co nvi ct ion s f

or of fe nse s ba se d one xto rt ionw er e inv al id unde r Sc he idl er v. N at ion al O rg an iz at ionf

or W om en , I nc . , 537 U
. S. 393 , 123 S
. Ct
. 105 7 ( 2003 ) be ca use the y did not obt ai n any

pr ope rty dur ing the c om

m iss ionof

the ir of fe nse s; 1 (2 ) the pr ose cu tor

e nga ge d inm isc ondu ct

dur ing it s op en ing state m en t; an d ( 3) cert ai n e vi de nc e in tro du cedby the go ve rn m en t was un ti m el y an d i na dm is si bl e. This Court rej ected the defe ndants’ evidentiary and prosecutorial
m iscondu ct argum ents. H owever , w e determ ined that because the defendants had not obt ai ne d any

pr ope rty dur ing the c om

m iss ionof

the ir of fe nse s, a n e le m en t of
ex tortio n ha d no t be enm et pur suant t o S ch ei dle r. A cc or din gly , w e va cate d bo th de fe ndants ’ c onvi ct ion s and s en te nc es on c ount s 2 and 3 in fu ll, a nd a lso the ir
co nvi ct ion s and s en te nc es on c ount 1, to the e xte nt the c onsp ir ac y a lle ge d inc ount 1 r el ie d one xto rt ion
. U nit ed S ta te s v. Ram os, N o. 02- 1647 8, a t 7 (1 1thCi r. S ep t. 26, 2003). W e not ed , how ev er , that the de fe ndants sti ll ha d va lid c onvi ct ion s f

or : ( 1)
co nspi ra cy

to vio la te the law s of

the U nit ed

S ta te s by ke ep ing m igr an t w orke rs inTh e a pp lic a ble Gu ide lin e fo r c on sp ir a c y , § 2X 1. 1, re fe rs to the su bs tanti ve of

fe ns e . I n th is 2 case , the sub s t an t ive offe nse is involuntary servitude, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1584. The Guideline for

a § 1584 off

ense is § 2H 4
. 1 (a )( 1 ). Al l citations are to the 2002 version of the Gu ide lin e s. 5 i n v o l u n t ary s er v i tu d e ( co u n t1 ); an d(2 ) h arb o ri n g i l l eg al al i en s (c o u n t4 ). We thu s r em an de d f

or r es en te nc ing on the se c onvi ct ion s. C. Re sente ncing On re m an d, t he di st ric t co ur t o rd ered rev is edPSIs forbo th de fen da nt s. A ft er gr oupi ng the of

fe nse s, the P SI s de te rm ine d th at the c ount pr oduc ing the hig he st o ff

en se le ve l w as c ount

1, the c onsp ir ac y

to co m m it inv oluntary -s er

vit ude of fe nse . T he G uid el ine f

or that of fe nse is U
. S. S. G
. § 2H 4. 1( a) (1 ), w hic h se ts the ba se of fe nse le ve l a t 22
. 2 In addition, § 2H4.1(b)( 4)(B) increases that base off ense level if “ any

other fe lon y of fe nse ” w as c om

m itt ed dur ing the inv oluntary -s er vit ude of fe nse a nd the of fe nse le ve l f

or that othe r fe lon y

of fe nse is gr eate r. S pe ci fi ca lly , § 2H 4. 1( b) (4 ) pr ovi de s: (4) If any

other felony

offense w as com

m itted during the com

m issio n of, or in connection with, the peonage or invol untary servitude offense, increase to the greater of: (A ) 2 pl us the of

fe nse le ve l a s de te rm ine d a bove , or (B ) 2 pl us the of

fe nse le ve l f

ro m the of fe nse gui de lin e applicable to that oth er off ense, but in no event greater than le ve l 43
.6

U
. S. S. G
. §§ 2 H 4. 1( b) (4 )( A )- (B ) (e m pha sis a dde d)
. I n a ddi tio n to the ir i n v o l u n t a ry- s e rv i tu d e o f

f e n s e , t h e d e f

e n d a n t s we r e c o n v i c t e do f a n o t h e r f e l o n y: harb or ing il le ga l a lie ns i n vi ola tio n of 8 U
. S. C. § 13 24. T he P SI ind ic at ed that the of fe nse le ve l f

or thi s othe r fe lon y

– harb or ing il le ga l a lie ns – w as hig he r an d thus
co nt ro ll edth e o ffen se lev el forth e in vo lu nt ary-serv it ud e o ffen se . Whil e U
. S. S. G
. § 2L 1. 1 se ts the ba se of fe nse le ve l a t 12 f

or harb or ing illegal aliens, the PS I re com m ended a nine-level enhancem ent under § 2L1.1( b)(2)(C ) because the defendants’ harboring-illegal-aliens offense involv ed
m or e than 10 0 a lie ns; af our -l ev el e nhanc em en t un de r § 2L 1. 1( b) (4 )( B) be ca use the defendants brandish ed a fir earm during th e May

27, 2000 assault on Martinez; and a six-level enhancem ent under § 2L1.1(b)( 6)(3) beca use Martinez sustained perm anent bodi ly

injury
. Ac cordingly , the P SI r ecom m ended: (1) an offe nse level of 31 for the harboring-illegal-aliens offense (12+9+4+6); and (2) an offense level of 33 f or the inv oluntary -s er

vit ude of fe nse ( tw o pl us the of

fe nse le ve l of

31 f ro m th e h arb or in g- il le ga l-a li en s o ffen se ). See U.S.S.G. § 2 H4.1 (b )(4 )(B)
. T he P SI a lso r ec om

m en de d atw o- le ve l e nhanc em en t f or Ram ir o R am os f

or obstructio n of j ustice. T hus, Ram iro Ram os’ s total offense level w as 35 and Juan Ram os’ s total offense level w as 33. Both defendants had a crim inal histo ry cat eg ory of I
.Th e statut or y maximum fo r the inv olu

nta ry -s e rv itu de of

fe ns e is 6 0 mo nth s’ imp ri so nme nt. 3 18 U. S.C. § 3 71 . T he statut or y maximumfo r t

he ha rb or ing -i lle g a l-ali ens of

fe ns e is 1 20 months ’ imprisonment. 8 U.S.C . § 1324(a) (2). 7 A t r es en te nc ing , the dis tr ic t c ourt a dopt ed the G uid el ine s c al cu la tio ns i n th e PSI
. Further, the district court accepted the governm ent’ s argum ent that the trial
ev ide nc e show ed

that bo th d ef

en dants w er e le ad er s of

the or ganiz at iona nd de se rv ed le ad er shi p r ole e nhanc em en ts. T he f our -l ev el le ad er shi p- ro le
en hanc em en t r es ult ed

in a tot al of

fe nse le ve l of

39 f or Ram ir o R am os and 3 7 f

or Juan R am os. T hus, Ram ir o R am os’ s G uid el ine s r an ge w as 262 -3 27 m onths’ im pr iso nm en t, a nd Juan R am os’ s G uid el ine s r an ge w as 210 -2 62 m onths’ im pr is on m en t. U lti m at el y , the dis tr ic t c ourt se nte nc ed both de fe ndants to onl y

60 m onths’ im pr iso nm en t onthe inv oluntary -s er vit ude of fe nse a nd 1 20 m onths’ im pr iso nm en t
on c ount 4 t o r un c onse cu tiv el y , f

or atot al of 180 m onths’ im

pr iso nm en t. T he sentences we re based on the statutory m axim um s for ea ch offense. 3 T he de fe ndants ti m el y

appe al ed
. II. D ISCU SSION A. Ap plication of § 2H4.1(b )(4)( B) T he de fe ndants ’ pr inc ipa l arg um en t i s th at the dis tr ic t c ourt i nc or

re ct ly ap pli ed §§ 2 H 4. 1( b) (4 )( B) a nd 2 L 1. 1 inse nte nc ing the m . T he de fe ndants do n otT h e d ef en d an t s m ad e th es e s am e o b j ec t i o n s ats en t en ci n g. Du ri n g th e s en t en ci n g h ea ri n g, 4 the district c ourt overr

uled the defe ndants’ objections. This Court revie ws the distric t court’s a pp lic atio n o f t

he Gu ide lin e s d e no vo and its fa c tua l f

ind ing s f or c le ar e rr or . U nit e d St ate s v . G ra nt, 397 F.3d 1330, 1332 ( 11th Cir. 2005).
8 challenge that the trial evidence showed that they assaulted and threatened Mart ine z on M ay

27, 200 0 w ithf

ir earm s. I nst ea d, the de fe ndants pr im ar ily a rg ue tha t the a ssa

ult on M ar tin ez , inc lud ing the use of f ir earm s, w as not

c onne ct ed

to the ir harb or ing -i lle ga l- al ie ns o ff en se a nd s houl d no t be use d to e nhanc e the ir
se nte nc es . T he y

a lso a rg ue that the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in de te rm ini ng tha t the injury Martinez sustained during th e assault wa s “ perm anent” for purposes of § 2L 1. 1( b) (6 )( 3) , a nd tha t the de fe ndants harb or ed m or e than 10 0 il le ga l a lie ns. 4 During the sentencing hearing, the district court found th at the trial evidence showed that the assault was part of the defendants’ offenses. Further, the district court determ ined that the trial evidence showed that the defendants harbored m ore than 10 0 il le ga l a lie ns and tha t M ar tin ez ’ s in j ur y w as pe rm an en t. W e re co unt
som e of the trial e vidence. A s to the May

27, 200 0 a ssa

ult , the tr ia l e vid en ce ind ic at ed that the de fe ndants appr oa ch ed

vans o w ne d by

Mart ine z an d th re at en ed to kil l M ar co s Or ozco, a van driver. The defendants also threatened Alej andro Benitez, another
van dr ive r. F urthe r, the de fe ndants r ep eate dly hit Mart ine z w ithagun , kic ke d hi m9

until he lost conscio usness, and accused him of “ taking away ” their “people.” Moreover, the defendants vandalized the vans th at Martinez used to transp ort
m igrant worker s, and Ram iro Ram os threatened to kill Martinez. T he of fe nse s th at

ga ve r ise to the c harg es in co unt s 1 and 4 oc curr ed f ro m January 2000 to June 20 01. T he May 27, 2000 altercation with Martinez occ urred dur ing that t im e an d th e tr ia l e vid en ce sho w ed that i t w as c om

m itt ed in or de r to ind uc e Mart ine z to s top tr an spor tin g m igr an t w orke rs out sid e of the ir a re a be ca

use t h ey fe l tMa rt i n ez ’s b u s i n es s t h re at en ed t h ei r e ff o rt s t o h arb o r i l l eg al al i en s . We thu s c onc lud e tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t c le ar ly e rr in fi ndi ng tha t the a ssa

ult on Mar ti ne z was co nn ect edto de fen da nt s’ harbo rin g- il le ga l-a li en s o ffen se . T he dis tr ic t c ourt a lso did not c le ar ly e rr in fi ndi ng tha t the de fe ndants harbored substant ially

m ore than 100 aliens. T he trial testim ony of the Social Security Adm inistration and Border P atrol agents was suff icient to sup port that fa ct -f ind ing
. S pe ci fi ca lly , a t tri al , a n a ge nt w iththe S oc ia l S ec ur ity A dm ini str at ionte sti fi ed

that ba se d onthe I -9 f

orm s su bm itt ed by the de fe ndants fo r the pe ri od f

ro m January 1, 200 0 th ro ugh June 30, 200 1, onl y six te enof

the ir ap pr oxi m at el y

680 w orke rs ha d va lid

soc ia l se curi ty

num be rs . F urthe r, a n a ge nt fr om the U nit ed

S ta te s B or de r Patr ol t es tif ie d th at the I -9 f orm s su bm itt ed by the de fe ndants r ef

le ct ed that on ly te n of the w or ke rs ha d va lid

a lie n r eg istratio nThe Guide lines define pe rmane nt or life-thre ateningbodily injury as an “ injury

involving 5 a substantial risk of de ath; loss or substantial impair ment of the func tion of a bodily member, or g an, or m ental fa culty

that is likely

to be per manent; or a

n obvious disfigure ment that is likely to be perma nent.” U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.1 cmt. n.1(g ). The e ntire brief

ing on a ppeal as to J uan R amos was completed on November 1, 2004. On 6 Marc h 1 1, 20 05 , Juan Ra mos fi le d a

mot ion for lea ve to file a

su pp le me nta l br ie f t o r a ise constitutional iss ues about his sentenc ing e nhance ments pursuant to United States v. Booke r, 543 U.S. __, 125 S. C t. 738 (2005). Whil e J uan Ramos’s initial brief on a ppeal c halleng ed the su ff ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e a s to his e nh anc e me nts and wh e the r § 2H4 .1 (b )( 4) (B ) wa s a n a pp lic a ble g uideline, it did not raise a ny constitutional iss ues about those e nhance ments or the Guidelines e ven though B lakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. __, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004) wa s decide d on J une 24, 2004, well prior to the filing of J uan Ramos’s brief. Be cause J uan Ramos did not raise a ny constitutional 10 num be rs , a n e igh t- dig it num

be r as sig ne d to ind ivi dua ls l aw fu lly a dm itt ed to the Uni te d S ta te s fo r pe rm an en t re si de nc e. Finally , at trial, Martinez a lso testified that as a result of the injuries
re ce ive d duri ng the a lte rc at ion , he sus ta ine d asc ar f ro m his ha ir lin e to the br idg e of his nos e an d ape rm an en t sc ar on h is l ip. T he pe rm an en cy of Mart ine z’ s sc ar

is
s u f f i c i e n tt o c l a s s i f

y h i s i n ju ry a s ap e rman e n to r

l i f e - t h r e a t e n i n g b o d i l y i n

ju ry. 5 Se e U nit ed

S ta te s v. T or

re al ba , 339 F
. 3d 1 238, 124 6 ( 11th C ir
. 200 3) , c er t. de nie d, 540 U
. S. 120 7, 124 S
. Ct
. 148 1 ( 2004 ) (“ [T ] he pla in l an gua ge of appl ic at ionnot e 1[ (g )] e nc om

pa sse s in j ur ie s th at

m ay not be te rr ibl y

se ve re but

a re pe rm an en t, he nc e the dis

j unc tiv e: ‘ pe rm an en t or

li fe -thr eate nin g in

j ur ie s. ’ ” (i nte rn al quo ta tio n
m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d) ). A cc or din gly , the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr in ca lc ula tin g th e de fe ndants ’
se nte nc es und er

§§ 2 H 4. 1( b) (4 )( B) a nd 2 L 1. 1. 6issues in his ini tial brief, we deem those issues a bandoned. See United States v. Docke ry , 401 F.3d 12 61 , 126 2 (11t

h Ci r. 20 05 ) ( de c lin ingto c on sid e r B oo ke r i ssu e wh e n d e fe nd ant f a ile d to tim e ly raise it in his initi al brief

); United States v. Nea ly , 232 F.3d 825, 830 ( 11th Cir. 2000) (“De fenda nt a ba nd on e d th e [Ap pr e nd i] in dic tme nt i ssu e by no t r a isi ngthe iss ue in h is i nit ia l br ie f. ” ); se e a lso United States v. L evy , 379 F.3d 1241, 1242 (11th Cir. 2004), petition for ce rt. filed, Mar ch 1, 2005 (No. 04-8942) (dec lining to consider Blakely issue raised for the first time in petition for re hear ing)
. Acc ording ly , we de ny

J uan R amos’s March 11, 2005 motion for leave to file a supplemental brie f to r a ise ne w i ssu e s. We a lso po int

out th at th e de fe nd ants did no t r a ise any

c on sti tut ion a l is su e s und e r t he Sixth Amendment in the district cour t a nd thus at most we would revie w the def endants’ B ooker issues fo r pla in e rr or . Un ite d State s v. Rod ri g ue z, 39 8 F .3 d 1 29 1, 12 98 (1 1th Cir . 2 00 5) , p e tit ion

fo r c e rt . fi l ed , Fe bruar

y 23, 2005 (73 U.S.L .W. 3531). Even if the de fenda nts could show err or that wa s plain, they

would be unable to satisfy the t hird prong of pl ain-e rror revie w. As discussed above , the dis tric t c ou

rt ’s fa c t- find in gs were n otcle arl y erro neo us andsupp ort ed t he d efen dan ts ’ enh ancements. The B ooker e rror

is not the use of extra-ve rdict enha nceme nts, but “the use of e x tra-v er dict enhanc ements to rea ch a guidelines result that is binding on the sentenc ing judge
. . . .” I d. at 1301. Nothing in the rec ord i ndicates that the defendants’ se ntence s would have be en diffe rent unde r an advisory Guidelines sche me. In fac t, the 60- and 120- month sentence s were the re sult of the statu t o ry m ax i m u m s for their offe nses, and those max imums were be low even the low end of the applicable Guidelines rang es, which wer e 262-327 months’ imprisonment for Ramiro Ramos and 210-262 months’ imprisonment for Juan Ramos. In Pearc e, the Supre me Court held that i f a m o re se vere sentenc e is imposed following 7 appea l, the rea sons for the ha rsher sentenc e must appea

r on the re cord a

nd must be “base d upon objective infor

mation c oncer

ning ide ntifiable conduc t on the part of the defe ndant occ urringafte r the time of the orig inal sentenc ing pr ocee ding.” 395 U.S. at 726, 89 S. Ct . at 2081. In Alabama v. Smit h , 4 9 0 U
. S. 7 9 4 , 1 0 9 S. Ct
. 2 2 0 1 ( 1 9 8 9 ) , th e Su p r e me Co ur

t c la r if ie d th e Pe ar c e d o c tr ine by 11 B. Vind ictive Se nten cing Rely ing on North Carolina v. Pe arce , 395 U. S. 711, 89 S. C t. 2072 (1969 ), the defendants contend that the district court’ s decision to im pose a harsher sentence than it did o riginally gives rise to a presum

ption that the court acted vin dic tiv el y , a nd tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt f ai le d to a rt ic ula te r ea sons f or im posi ng the lon ge r se nte nc e tha t are suf fi ci en t t o r eb ut tha t pr es um pti on, thu s e sta

bli shi ng a violatio n of their due process rights. W e disagree. 7e xpla ini ng th at the pr e sumpt ion of vin dic tiv e ne ss a

pp lie s o nly

wh e re the re is a

“ re a so na ble likelihood” that the incre ase in the se ntence is the product of a ctual vindictiveness, a nd if the presumption does not apply , the defe ndant must prove actua l vindictivene ss. Smit h 490 U.S. at 799, 109 S. Ct . 2204-05.
At rese ntencing , the district court a l s o corr ectly applied the obstruc tion-of-justice a nd 8 leade rship-role e nhance ments. The obstruction-of -justice and leade rship-role enhanc ements we re the re sult of t he g overnme nt’s timely objections to the PSIupon rese ntencing . The g overnme nt at t e mp t e d t o m ak e th o s e s am e o b j e c t i o n s atth e o r i g i n a l s e n t e n c i n g ; h o w e v e r , th e y w e r e un t i m e l y. The district cour

t was per mitted to consider the objec tions on remand bec ause they wer e timely and 12 Fi rs t, a s de te rm ine d a

bove , a t r es en te nc ing the dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y de te rm ine d th e de fe ndants ’ G uid el ine s c al cu la tio ns. I n th e or igi na l se nte nc ing , when the probation office applied § 2H4.1, the Guideline for involunt ary
se rv itu de , it

inc or re ct ly c ro ss- re fe re nc ed

the G uid el ine appl ic ab le to ex tortio n ins te ad of the hig he r G uid el ine in § 2L 1. 1 f or harb or ing il le ga l a lie ns. A lth ough
w e ar e not

e xc usi ng the inc or

re ct c al cu la tio ns tha t w er e use d a t the f ir st
se nte nc ing , w e do n ot attr ibu te the c or re ct appl ic at ionof

§ 2H 4. 1 a t r es en te nc ing to vin dictiveness. See United States v. Edw ards, 225 F.3d 991 , 993 (8th Cir. 2000 ) (“ [T ] he re is no i ndi catio n of vin dic tiv en es s inr es en te nc ing ade fe ndant t o
ex ac tly the se nte nc e tha t the de fe ndant w oul d have r ec ei ve d bu t f or the e rr one ous ap pli catio n of

[ the G uid el ine s]
. ”) ; U nit ed S ta te s v. D uso, 42 F
. 3d 3 65, 369 ( 6th Ci r. 199 4) ( “ If

the dis tr ic t j udge e rr s inf av or of the de fe ndant, how ev er , the d ef en d an tb ea rs t h e r i s kt h at t h e e rr o r may be co rr ec t ed ag ai n s tt h e d ef en d an t ’s favor [on re sentencing]. ”). 8beca

use the sente ncingproce ss had started a new. See United States v. Stinson, 97 F.3d 466, 469 (11th Cir. 1996) (“ [W ]hen a criminal sente nce is va cate d, it be comes void in its entirety ; the sentenc e – including a

ny enhanc ements – has be en wholly nullified and t h e s l ate wiped clea n.” (inter nal qu otatio n ma

rk s and cit atio n o mitte d) ). F ur the r, the re is n o e vid e nc e in t he re c or d th at th e se enhanc ements w er e the result of vindictiveness. In any event, a s expl ained in footnote 6, the defe ndants rec eived lowe r sentenc es than the Guidelin es rang e for their off enses due to the applicable statutory

maxi mums. 13 Further, the transcript of the re sentencing h earing ref lects that the district
co urt c ar ef

ull y c onsi de re d e ac h of

the part ie s’ obj ec tio ns, de ta ile d th e ba sis f or it s
ca lc ula tio ns, a nd e xpl ai ne d th e re as ons the ne wse nte nc es w er e lon ge r than th e
or igi na l se nte nc es . S ee U nit ed S ta te s v. Co x, 299 F
. 3d 1 43, 149 -5 0 ( 2d C ir
. 200 2) (f ind ing no v ind ic tiv en es s and s ta tin g “ the dis tr ic t c ourt thr ough out the se pr oc ee din gs c ar ef

ull y not if ie d th e part ie s of

it s c onc er

ns, c onsi de re d th ei r argum ents and sub m issio ns, and deliberately laid out its rationale”). C. Entit lem ent to Lesser S ente nces T he de fe ndants a lso arg ue that the y w er e en tit le d to ale sse r se nte nc e on
re m an d be ca

use tw o of

the ir c onvi ct ion s w er e va cate d. W e dis ag re e. I t i s w el lse ttl ed that a de fe ndant i s no t e nti tle d to a sho rt er se nte nc e j ust

be ca use one or
m or e co unt s of

c onvi ct iona re dis m iss ed on a ppe al a nd h e is r es en te nc ed on the
rem aining cou nts. See United State s v. W arda, 285 F.3d 573, 580-81 (7th Cir. 2002 ); see a lso United States v. S tinso n, 97 F. 3d 46 6, 469 (11th Cir. 1996). III. CO NC LUS ION14

Fo r th e ab ov e rea so ns , we affi rm th e d efen da nt s’ sen te nc es . AFFIRMED.